SATYA PRAKASH RAI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Nisheeth Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

(2.) Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties. With the consent of parties, writ petition is being decided at the admission stage itself.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner is assailing the impugned order dated 31.8.2009 by which he was terminated from service by exercising the power under Rule 8(2)(b) of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as Rules, 1991). He submitted that petitioner is having qualification of Intermediate and he was recruited as Police Constable on 11.12.1984. During the course of service, several disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him in which he was given minor punishment. He further submitted that there is allegation against the petitioner that he was off duty, he has taken excess liquor and scuffled with the colleagues and due to this reason, considering his past conduct, impugned order has been passed by exercising power under Rule 8(2)(b) of Rules, 1991. He next submitted that in case of termination/dismissal order passed under Rule 8(2)(b), it is required on the part of Disciplinary Authority to record reasons in writing that reasonably it is not practicable to hold inquiry. Rule 8(2)(b) of Rules, 1991 is pari materia to Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India. He further submitted that no such reasons was recorded and only considering his past conduct, order of termination has been passed. He next submitted that in light of judgments of Apex Court in the cases of Indu Bhushan Dwivedi Vs. State of Jharkhand and another reported in 2010 (126) FLR 994 and Mohd Yunus Khan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2010) 10 SCC 539 wherein the Apex Court held that for imposing punishment, Disciplinary Authority cannot consider his past adverse record or punishment without giving him an opportunity to explain his position. Lastly, he submitted that in case reasons are not recorded, order passed under Rule 8(2)(b) of Rules, 1991 is bad and liable to be set aside.